Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quite a few changes, some linked to a previous discussion where Alamy grant retrospective licenses to infringers. It now says you can't contact an infringer if they sourced the image from Alamy even if Alamy don't chase the infringement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a few changes, some linked to a previous discussion where Alamy grant retrospective licenses to infringers. It now says you can't contact an infringer if they sourced the image from Alamy even if Alamy don't chase the infringement.

 

 

27.2 In the event of any alleged breach of any Licence or any other infringement of intellectual property or other rights in an Image, Alamy may either take action itself against the infringer or alternatively inform you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option.

 

I guess this says you are allowed under these circumstances..

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really surprising for me now!

 

1.3.7. Only with Alamy’s permission and if you are an Agency Contributor you may set your own prices for your Royalty-Free Images.

 

Good and bad at the same time - I'm affraid of $1 flood here... I just hope Alamy won't change into micro.

Edited by Arletta
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really surprising for me now!

 

1.3.7. Only with Alamy’s permission and if you are an Agency Contributor you may set your own prices for your Royalty-Free Images.

 

Good and bad at the same time - I'm affraid of $1 flood here... I just hope Alamy won't change into micro.

Yes - but you need to quote this in context, the previous clause stated that a contributor could set RF prices WITHOUT alamy's permission.

 

So the amended clause is giving alamy a much stronger control

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not happy with the new contract – particularly because of retrospective licenses & not being able to contact infringers.

Does anyone know how to terminate the contract? I mean: Is there a button somewhere, or do I need to write an e-mail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quite a few changes, some linked to a previous discussion where Alamy grant retrospective licenses to infringers. It now says you can't contact an infringer if they sourced the image from Alamy even if Alamy don't chase the infringement.

 

 

27.2 In the event of any alleged breach of any Licence or any other infringement of intellectual property or other rights in an Image, Alamy may either take action itself against the infringer or alternatively inform you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option.

 

I guess this says you are allowed under these circumstances..

 

 

Clause 4.12 seems to be the opposite of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quite a few changes, some linked to a previous discussion where Alamy grant retrospective licenses to infringers. It now says you can't contact an infringer if they sourced the image from Alamy even if Alamy don't chase the infringement.

 

 

27.2 In the event of any alleged breach of any Licence or any other infringement of intellectual property or other rights in an Image, Alamy may either take action itself against the infringer or alternatively inform you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option.

 

I guess this says you are allowed under these circumstances..

 

 

Clause 4.12 seems to be the opposite of that.

 

 

Yes, you are quite right. 

 

But, I see this as a specification that later in the terms overrides this in these specific cases..... Otherwise this is particularly badly worded, which I don't believe it is...

 

 

Edited: But clause 4.12 ought to refer to this later exception....

Edited by Niels Quist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not happy with the new contract – particularly because of retrospective licenses & not being able to contact infringers.

Does anyone know how to terminate the contract? I mean: Is there a button somewhere, or do I need to write an e-mail?

 

If you are not happy the only alternative is to leave Alamy I'm afraid.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like New Clause 27 at all. I'm going to start pulling many images off as a result of this.  Copyright and it's recourse are my rights!  Not Alamy's! If it is not a customer of Alamy infringing and image, it is my loss only, not Alamy's, that is being recovered with any infringement suit. They are getting excessively greedy here.

 

I hope others will join me in demanding the deletion of this clause. It's ridiculous !

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like New Clause 27 at all. I'm going to start pulling many images off as a result of this.  Copyright and it's recourse are my rights!  Not Alamy's! If it is not a customer of Alamy infringing and image, it is my loss only, not Alamy's, that is being recovered with any infringement suit. They are getting excessively greedy here.

 

I hope others will join me in demanding the deletion of this clause. It's ridiculous !

 

The crucial words are "if the picture has been sourced from Alamy" - what we are saying in this clause is that we will either pursue the infringement and if we don't, you as the contributor are authorized to do so.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an earlier clause I'm concerned by.

 

(Now clause 4.12) Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.

 

What does "sourced directly or indirectly" from the Alamy system mean? A common source of infringement is that a paying Alamy customer pays for and publishes one of my images on-line. This image is then copied from their web-site by unrelated 3rd parties and republished elsewhere. Does that constitute indirect sourcing from Alamy? If so, the new contract appears to prevent me from pursuing the infringer (the unrelated 3rd party user of the image). This isn't good! Or have I misunderstood?

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an earlier clause I'm concerned by.

 

(Now clause 4.12) Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.

 

What does "sourced directly or indirectly" from the Alamy system mean? A common source of infringement is that a paying Alamy customer pays for and publishes one of my images on-line. This image is then copied from their web-site by unrelated 3rd parties and republished elsewhere. Does that constitute indirect sourcing from Alamy? If so, the new contract appears to prevent me from pursuing the infringer (the unrelated 3rd party user of the image). This isn't good! Or have I misunderstood?

I think that is exactly what is meant by sourced indirectly.

 

About not being allowed to pursue the infringer yourself - look a few posts back in this thread.

 

Niels

Edited by Niels Quist
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't like New Clause 27 at all. I'm going to start pulling many images off as a result of this. Copyright and it's recourse are my rights! Not Alamy's! If it is not a customer of Alamy infringing and image, it is my loss only, not Alamy's, that is being recovered with any infringement suit. They are getting excessively greedy here.

 

I hope others will join me in demanding the deletion of this clause. It's ridiculous !

The crucial words are "if the picture has been sourced from Alamy" - what we are saying in this clause is that we will either pursue the infringement and if we don't, you as the contributor are authorized to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's got to be an element of what's practical and workable here.  Isn't agreeing to the contract exactly what you are asking for i.e. "my option to authorize you to pursue or not" - you are granting authority to pursue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't object to grant

 

There's got to be an element of what's practical and workable here.  Isn't agreeing to the contract exactly what you are asking for i.e. "my option to authorize you to pursue or not" - you are granting authority to pursue.

 

I don't object to granting Alamy the option to pursue infringements of images sourced directly from them or their distributors. In fact I welcome that, providing the commission rate isn't altered to cover their costs. I'm just wary that the contract could be perhaps be interpreted as giving Alamy exclusive rights to pursue infringers for images sourced either directly or  indirectly. It's the term indirectly sourced that worries me, and could do with being clarified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I see there is nothing new in this. It is exactly my procedure when finding a use / infringement I think or know has to derive from Alamy before I go for it myself.

What about the changes that more or less allow you to nick other photographers' keywords/descriptions, etc.? Much more irritating. I liked the times when the keywords were unrevealed.

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the changes that more or less allow you to nick other photographers' keywords/descriptions, etc.? Much more irritating. I liked the times when the keywords were unrevealed.

I would think that there is an issue relating to enforceability  and practicality here.  How do you prove that appropriate key words were copied or come up with independently? If you have two images of the same subject by different photographers, how do you prove the originality of the keywords - then the big question: shouldn't they have the same keywords? If you can't prove anything or it is impractical to enforce, then better not to have a specific clause. If as a photographer you think that someone is unreasonably profiting by copying your work product (keywords in this case) then you can always take action yourself. I wonder if anyone has ever fallen foul of that one anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a more detailed definition of "sourced via the Alamy system".

 

As far as I am aware, many users are able to download possible image options. These may or may not be used. An identical image may be sourced from an alternative library of direct from our own websites (non-exclusive).. Maybe due to another deal someone else is able to offer...

 

If we are not aware of what images are download and by whom without them being used, how can we know or comply with some of these infringement terms?

 

Of course, this also works the other way - how do Alamy know what is and what is not exclusive and therefore what to pursue...

 

Given these issues, is this actually workable? Alamy, how do you see this (particularly as infringements are growing and growing)?

Edited by Julie Edwards
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1.    It is absolutely not our intention to prevent photographers from pursuing copyright infringements. If it was, the clause in the contract would state that you can’t pursue any infringements

2.    That said, we have invested money and resources in systems and processes to track down infringements that originated from Alamy. (We are working with Pic Scout who are the best in our business at identifying infringements)

3.    We will only chase certain infringements, we can't chase everything, eg, for images that are widely distributed outside of Alamy, then it’s impractical to pursue these. 

4.    We want to help photographers by taking on the responsibility and cost to pursue the infringement if the image began its journey on Alamy. We feel it’s our responsibility and one that we haven’t taken seriously enough in the past.

5.    When it comes to whether the image was sourced from us or not there are varying degrees of certainty that we can have:

  • Is the image exclusive to us? We don’t ask this but we will as part of a chase process and we may routinely ask it as part of the submission process
  • Was it downloaded from us, do we have a record of this?
  • Does the image have an Alamy credit or watermark on it (this would imply it had indirectly come from us, eg google images)

6.    Overall we are taking a cautious and practical approach, we aren't suggesting photographers change any behavior when it comes to their actions against copyright infringement 

 

Cheers

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as good news that Alamy is going to more seriously pursue infringements originated from Alamy - especially since I take the time to send different images to each agency.

 

(99% of my images I submit to Alamy are available Just on Alamy/its partners - & possibly my site, with informative Watermark in center of each image.)

- Ann

Edited by ann
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ann. I see this as great news . What I upload to Alamy is 100% Exclusive to them so I'm delighted.

 

I think I might even start and send them a few more. If they can only get my CRT off the ground floor. 

Edited by Shergar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.